Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth
 Itself is not Broken.
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:39:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 302
Message-ID: <v4lc8n$3n4dj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4itis$kqh$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4iutm$39bc0$1@dont-email.me> <v4ivig$kqh$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v4ivti$39gh7$2@dont-email.me> <v4j28d$kqh$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v4j2ck$39ub0$1@dont-email.me> <v4j2u4$kqh$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v4j3bd$3a0ot$2@dont-email.me> <v4js1c$2218$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4k5aq$3fnqu$3@dont-email.me> <v4k69h$2218$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4k84g$3gc4t$2@dont-email.me> <v4k9gi$2219$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kafp$3gc4t$7@dont-email.me> <v4kbc0$2218$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kcn5$3h3iu$3@dont-email.me> <v4kdcc$2218$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kefm$3h3iu$5@dont-email.me> <v4kf8g$2219$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kflr$3hugj$2@dont-email.me> <v4kg3f$2218$20@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kgop$3hugj$3@dont-email.me> <v4khir$2219$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v4ki8q$3ib3p$1@dont-email.me> <v4kim5$2219$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kj9m$3iid3$1@dont-email.me> <v4kjod$2218$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kl14$3ircc$1@dont-email.me> <v4klf7$2219$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kp9p$3jfm0$2@dont-email.me> <v4l6q6$3n5d$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4l83h$3m8b0$1@dont-email.me> <v4l9ea$3n5d$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 02:39:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476";
	logging-data="3903923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18x+bOkUYDQgq6BrigT+qJG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VunyenHOzy8FePlIX7KTiCEeA0U=
In-Reply-To: <v4l9ea$3n5d$4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12343

On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>>>>>>>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>>>>>>>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a CYCLE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle 
>>>>>>> if its only definition is its relationships.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
>>>>>> to a finite recursive depth.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course everyone can see that these two identical questions
>>>> have NOTHING to do with each other:
>>>>
>>>> "What is a {thing}?"
>>>> "What is a {thing}?"
>>>
>>> So, where do you get the anser?
>>>
>>> Note, it is "what is a {thing}?" and NOT "what are the children of 
>>> {thing}?"
>>>
>>
>> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
>> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
>> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>>
> 
> HOW?
> 
> All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child 
> relationship between terms.
> 
> If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING 
> about the actual meaning of the words.
> 
> I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
> 

I guess that you can't begin to understand this
without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to like wrong questions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seems to deny the identity principle.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
>>>>>>>> recursive depth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close 
>>>>>>> your eyes to the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
>>>>>> of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
>>>>>> clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you can't point to any specific gaps in my reasoning proves
>>>> that you only have baseless rhetoric. I think that we established
>>>> that my IQ is higher than yours haven't we? I forget.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I Have.
>>>
>>
>> You have not.
>>
>>> You don't understand.
>>>
>>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>
>>
>> Do you even remember that conversation?
> 
> You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
> 
> You said it was impossible.
> 

I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.

> 
> Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is not 
> that high.
> 
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically 
>>>>>>>>> existing thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>>>>>>>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are your parent types?
>>>>>>>>>> What are your child types?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By 
>>>>>>>>> all your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and 
>>>>>>>>> {Physically existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in 
>>>>>>>>>>> terms of a collection of all its sub-componets  (which gives 
>>>>>>>>>>> you a circular definition 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>>>>>>>>>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says 
>>>>>>>> that the objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: 
>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between 
>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========